More like avoiding infuriating hypocritical garbage. I've read post after post about the inherent injustice of hate crime laws as they wrongly carry greater sentences for considering intention (as opposed to weighing the harms of the action in and of itself)--yet it's prudent to sentence a women who falsely accused a man of rape the same sentence as a rapist given her intention to get him thrown in jail for an undetermined length of time?

There are also the rally parties for ending the ridiculous drug war (as sentences are unjustly long once again weighing the potential harms to society instead of simply considering the actual harm of the crime itself), and the outrageous application of sex crime laws.

A lot of redditors should consider REALITY as it certainly does not exist in harmony with their victim complex.

According to government statistics, only 5.7 percent of rapes officially recorded by police in England and Wales end in a conviction.

A 2005 report commissioned by the police found a "culture of skepticism" in the justice system when it came to rape cases, and recommended shifting the focus from seeking reasons not to believe the accuser to gathering evidence to support the charge.

Human Rights Watch analyzed data from the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, and Los Angeles County's 47 independent police departments, and found that as of March 1, 2009, there were at least 12,669 untested rape kits sitting in storage facilities. In those cases, officers never sent the kits on for forensic testing.

Of these 12,669 untested kits, at least 1,218 are from unsolved cases in which the attacker was a stranger to the victim. And 499 kits are attached to cases past the 10-year statute of limitations for rape in California, making it impossible to prosecute the alleged assailants even if they were to be identified. Under California law, if those 499 kits had been opened within two years of the attack, the statute would no longer apply. Thousands more rape kits were destroyed untested.

"Fuad declined to speak about specific cases, but he said he has been surprised by some "not guilty" verdicts. He said jurors have been shown compelling evidence -- such as blood at the scene or internal injury to the woman -- and still not returned a guilty verdict."

People should be charged and convicted for the crime they committed.

Judges give juries the legal range of applicable sentences and then Prosecutors detail every single harm caused by the defendant--if the victim lost their job or had permanent damage done to their reputation then that WILL be mentioned and a prosecutor is going to push for the MAXIMUM sentence. In the case of a sentencing by judge Prosecutors make the same case. Discussion of harsh sentencing by judges

In short, perhaps you should base your judgment on the well-documented realities of the court system.